Healthy eating and living and not just nutritional yeast

Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Let me put it this way: lactose intolerance is on a sliding scale. If you stop drinking milk as an adult, it becomes much more difficult to tolerate it. This doesn't mean that it was 100% okay before that.

Lactose free=heavily processed. Milk at the store is already pastuerized before it's safe to drink, altering the nutrients that would naturally be there. Cow's milk is something that was not consumed by humans for something like 95% of their history.

If that counts as health food, it's basically in a class of it's own since the great majority of health food does not require heavy processing and isn't correlated with GI upset.
You don't need to heavily process anything, you can add lactase to milk and it's done. For most of history people didn't drink almond milk did they? Because it's hugely labour intensive to produce something of limited nutritional value.

Insects will have been eaten by the bulk of early humans and are very healthy, I doubt they feature much in your diet.

And pasteurization is not essential, it's a modern precaution, just as many aspects of modern farming are. It's also done to eggs, fruit juice and many nuts. Are they unnatural too? I eat raw cheeses and they're legal in the EU.

This is a bizarre argument that you've created. I don't care if you prefer almond milk and I've no investment in promoting milk. The facts are simple and undeniable. Milk has far greater nutritional value than almond milk. It is what is.
 
May 19, 2013
17,154
6,713
I reckon I'm pretty healthy regarding food.

Monday to Friday I'll eat:

Breakfast - Overnight oats, with raspberries, peanut butter, Greek yogurt.

Lunch : typically what had night before ( see dinner)

Dinner: e.g chicken/beef/prawn stir fry with brown rice or brown noodles and shit tonnes of veg and basic soy, garlic and ginger homemade sauce. Baked salmon with veg and roast sweet potato. Lamb tagine dish with cous cous, veg etc. Homemade spag bol with brown pasta. This list is endless, I have 3 or 4 cookbooks that I go through that are aimed at relatively healthy meals relatively quickly. But guarantee, at least 4 nights a week I'm making my meals from scratch and spending at least an hour doing so.

I'll usually snack on mandarin/banana. Every now and again I'll have something shitty like a chocolate bar or crisps ( talking like twice a week at most)

Try to drink a good bit of water and stay away from fizzy drinks for weeks on end.

At weekends I'll change it up a bit and depending on what I'm doing I might be healthy or unhealthy. But for argument sake I'd have an unhealthy breakfast on one of those days e.g a small -medium fry ( I'm not a massive eater and don't eat egg) or a bacon and cheese sandwich.

Usually make a steak on a Saturday or Friday night, prob with baked chips and side salad. Not healthy, but not totally the worst.

As for alcohol, in comparison to others around me I'm.not a big drinker. But on certain nights ( stags for e.g) I can put them away and pay for it for the next few days. But usually it's a shared bottle of wine once a week, maybe 2 glasses of whiskey over the week and maybe 4 beers over the average week. Then at times I can go 3 months without a drop.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
You don't need to heavily process anything, you can add lactase to milk and it's done. For most of history people didn't drink almond milk did they? Because it's hugely labour intensive to produce something of limited nutritional value.

Insects will have been eaten by the bulk of early humans and are very healthy, I doubt they feature much in your diet.

And pasteurization is not essential, it's a modern precaution, just as many aspects of modern farming are. It's also done to eggs, fruit juice and many nuts. Are they unnatural too? I eat raw cheeses and they're legal in the EU.

This is a bizarre argument that you've created. I don't care if you prefer almond milk and I've no investment in promoting milk. The facts are simple and undeniable. Milk has far greater nutritional value than almond milk. It is what is.
Almond milk can be made with filtered water and almonds exclusively. Most of the products have some additives which are beneficial, but there’s no extended processing needed to make it consumable to the average adult human.

Here’s one cup vs one cup:

Calories per cup=146
Total Fat 8 g12%
Saturated fat 4.6 g22%
Polyunsaturated fat 0.5 g
Monounsaturated fat 2 g
Cholesterol 24 mg8%
Sodium 105 mg4%
Potassium 322 mg9%
Total Carbohydrate 12 g4%
Dietary fiber 0 g0%
Sugar 12 g
Protein 8 g16%
Vitamin A7%Vitamin C0%
Calcium27%Iron0%
Vitamin D31%Vitamin B-65%
Cobalamin18%Magnesium6%

Calories 30Calories From Fat 20
% DAILY VALUE
Total Fat 2.5g4%
Saturated Fat 0g0%
Trans Fat 0g
Polyunsaturated Fat0.5g
Monounsaturated Fat1.5g
Total Carbohydrate 1g0%
Dietary Fiber 1g4%
Sugars 0g
Cholesterol 0mg0%
Sodium 170mg7%
Potassium 160mg5%
Protein 1g0%
Vitamin A10%
Vitamin C0%
Calcium45%
Iron4%
Vitamin D25%
Vitamin E50%
Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)2%
Phosphorus2%
Magnesium4%
Zinc0%
Copper2%
Manganese4%
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
Multiply the numbers for almond milk by four to adjust for calories and it’s more healthy than milk. Milk is more compact if that’s what you’re looking for.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Multiply the numbers for almond milk by four to adjust for calories and it’s more healthy than milk. Milk is more compact if that’s what you’re looking for.
It has to have calcium added to it. It has a fraction of the vitamin D, protein and iodine. It has to be fortified and natural sources of vitamins are far better than fortification. In addition, most calcium added is from a rock source which is far less bioavailable than plant sources.

And no almond milk is not easy to get, it requires ludicrous amounts of water and work. The fact that it's just water and almonds is irrelevant. It's labour intensive and to make it have any nutritional value it needs to be fortified.

But believe what you like.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
It has to have calcium added to it. It has a fraction of the vitamin D, protein and iodine. It has to be fortified and natural sources of vitamins are far better than fortification. In addition, most calcium added is from a rock source which is far less bioavailable than plant sources.

And no almond milk is not easy to get, it requires ludicrous amounts of water and work. The fact that it's just water and almonds is irrelevant. It's labour intensive and to make it have any nutritional value it needs to be fortified.

But believe what you like.
Ok. I’ll keep my gut bacteria intact.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
:lol: I presume you also knew that virtually all almond milk in the US is pasteurized? Of course you did.
Apples and oranges. When you buy a normal gallon of milk at the grocery store, you’re drinking something that’s been manipulated to taste good at a point when it should be stale. The cow that produced it will have been sick from being force fed grains and corn in a cubicle instead of roaming and eating grass.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Apples and oranges. When you buy a normal gallon of milk at the grocery store, you’re drinking something that’s been manipulated to taste good at a point when it should be stale. The cow that produced it will have been sick from being force fed grains and corn in a cubicle instead of roaming and eating grass.
That's like saying eggs are from chickens in cages. They don't have to be. The fact is that you came into this thread and picked an argument over a post I made about the benefits of full fat milk over fat reduced versions and as an aside I mentioned almond milk etc.

It turned out that you didn't know almond milk was pasteurized, even though that was one of your criticisms of cow milk. You appear not to have known that the calcium in almond milk is added and generally a far less bioavailable form.

You also don't seem to have known how hugely intensive the process of making almond milk is, and at the same time made the irrelevant argument that cows milk was not common throughout most of human history... yeah I bet tons of hunter gatherers drank almond milk.

Basically, you butted into an exchange being glib and smug about something you actually knew very little about.

But...whatever. It's not bad for you and if you like it...cool. I'm done with this discussion, as it's pointless.
 
Reactions: Smith
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
That's like saying eggs are from chickens in cages. They don't have to be. The fact is that you came into this thread and picked an argument over a post I made about the benefits of full fat milk over fat reduced versions and as an aside I mentioned almond milk etc.

It turned out that you didn't know almond milk was pasteurized, even though that was one of your criticisms of cow milk. You appear not to have known that the calcium in almond milk is added and generally a far less bioavailable form.

You also don't seem to have known how hugely intensive the process of making almond milk is, and at the same time made the irrelevant argument that cows milk was not common throughout most of human history... yeah I bet tons of hunter gatherers drank almond milk.

Basically, you butted into an exchange being glib and smug about something you actually knew very little about.

But...whatever. It's not bad for you and if you like it...cool. I'm done with this discussion, as it's pointless.
Cows milk was not common throughout most of human history. That's utter bullshit, no pun intended. It's the reason why most humans cannot digest it.

140 calories of almond breeze has close to 10x more calcium. Pasturizing milk is very different from pasturizing almonds. Pastuerizing milk denatures the enzymes in it.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Cows milk was not common throughout most of human history. That's utter bullshit, no pun intended. It's the reason why most humans cannot digest it.

140 calories of almond breeze has close to 10x more calcium. Pasturizing milk is very different from pasturizing almonds. Pastuerizing milk denatures the enzymes in it.
The calcium has to be added. It's not in there naturally, because the process of making it removes the calcium from the almonds, the almond milk is then pasteurized and fortified with added calcium. So this is like me putting a tablet of omega 3s in a glass of milk and then telling you how much more omega 3 fats milk has. :lol:

We've established you don't really know what you're talking about on this, but because you're lactose intolerant it appears to be something you're desperate to prove to yourself.

I'm done.
 
Reactions: Smith
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
The calcium has to be added. It's not in there naturally, because the process of making it removes the calcium from the almonds, the almond milk is then pasteurized and fortified with added calcium. So this is like me putting a tablet of omega 3s in a glass of milk and then telling you how much more omega 3 fats milk has. :lol:

We've established you don't really know what you're talking about on this, but because you're lactose intolerant it appears to be something you're desperate to prove to yourself.

I'm done.
Milk is not correlated to decreased osteoporosis. All that calcium and vitamin D, and no decrease in osteoporosis.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Milk is not correlated to decreased osteoporosis. All that calcium and vitamin D, and no decrease in osteoporosis.
Did you even read the paper you linked? Do you realise that none of my initial post was about osteoporosis. YOU claimed that almond milk was better because it had more calcium. Now you're arguing that calcium does not reduce osteoporosis. :lol: Seeing as almond milk has very little nutritional value bar the calcium that's added to it...ah fuck this. I'm wasting my time. There are other nutrients in life than calcium by the way.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
35,182
12,312
I basically just skip breakfast, man. Easy peasy. You adapt quick as fuck too. I literally don't feel hungry until about 30 mins before i normally eat. Even when i tried only eating from 6pm-8pm, after a few days, i didn't feel hungry until just before i was due to eat. Your body is adaptive as fuck.

I still eat the same though. Like at 1pm i'll eat my breakfast (oats, protein, chia/flax seed) then my usual lunch. Dinner at around 6. So i just eat the same as i would if i ate breakfast at the normal time. I just give my body that 16-18 hours fasting time to recuperate and do whatever the fuck else it does when it doesn't need to process food.
Yeah I have hardly eaten a breakfast for the last 20 years. I just don't like eating within a couple of hours of getting up.

It's almost 1am here. I woke up at 9:30pm, ate a handful of trail mix (assorted nuts, dried fruit and chocolate) when I got to work, now I'm waiting on my first break so I can grill some chicken breast and make a wrap. And I'm juuuuuust starting to get hungry. I can't understand these people who wake up and 20 minutes later they're gorging themselves on eggs, cereal, toast, bacon, baked beans or whatever. Makes me feel out and out sick, eating like that as soon as I wake up.

:hat
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,868
1,778
Did you even read the paper you linked? Do you realise that none of my initial post was about osteoporosis. YOU claimed that almond milk was better because it had more calcium. Now you're arguing that calcium does not reduce osteoporosis. :lol: Seeing as almond milk has very little nutritional value bar the calcium that's added to it...ah fuck this. I'm wasting my time. There are other nutrients in life than calcium by the way.
So we agree that the calcium in milk does nothing for osteoporosis? I wasn't paraphrasing the paper I posted.

It's strange how the dairy industry has enough money to influence government and have their products required in public schools and prisons, but has trouble funding solid research that shows its health benefits.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
So we agree that the calcium in milk does nothing for osteoporosis? I wasn't paraphrasing the paper I posted.

It's strange how the dairy industry has enough money to influence government and have their products required in public schools and prisons, but has trouble funding solid research that shows its health benefits.
No we don't agree. The very paper you quoted says to be wary of the results, as there are multiple issues. First of all it's a cohort study based off self reporting. About the most unreliable way of proving causation over correlation as you can get. It's not worthless, and it is interesting, but it has multiple issues which the authors themselves acknowledge. The jury is out on that. But then you were the one bragging about the calcium in almond milk, even though it's added in, is in most cases rock form which is less digestible, and now you're shitting on calcium's nutritional worth.

Basically, you're googling as you go along. Started off thinking calcium was a good thing to prove the greater worth of almond milk, got told it was added in and likely to be less bioavailable, went off and looked for something to criticise milk on and found something that was based on calcium and osteoporosis, so suddenly that's your focus.

Vitamin B12, Protein, Iodine...all higher in milk. Moreover, the study you linked is based around galactose being problematic and thus it could offset calcium benefits. At the very beginning of this exchange, I said "You can get lactose free milk". Well lactose free milk is also free of galactose, as galactose is one component of lactose. So again, you could avoid any possible negatives from that compound by having lactose free milk that would then also contain far more nutritional value than almond milk.